Problems with Ex Nihilo Creation

[ding]

Heat death of the universe - Wikipedia

From your own link;

Max Planck wrote that the phrase "entropy of the universe" has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[21][22] More recently, Grandy writes: "It is rather presumptuous to speak of the entropy of a universe about which we still understand so little, and we wonder how one might define thermodynamic entropy for a universe and its major constituents that have never been in equilibrium in their entire existence."[23] According to Tisza: "If an isolated system is not in equilibrium, we cannot associate an entropy with it."[24] Buchdahl writes of "the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".[25] According to Gallavotti: "... there is no universally accepted notion of entropy for systems out of equilibrium, even when in a stationary state."[26] Discussing the question of entropy for non-equilibrium states in general, Lieb and Yngvason express their opinion as follows: "Despite the fact that most physicists believe in such a nonequilibrium entropy, it has so far proved impossible to define it in a clearly satisfactory way."[27] In the opinion of Čápek and Sheehan, "no known formulation [of entropy] applies to all possible thermodynamic regimes."[28] In Landsberg's opinion, "The third misconception is that thermodynamics, and in particular, the concept of entropy, can without further enquiry be applied to the whole universe. ... These questions have a certain fascination, but the answers are speculations, and lie beyond the scope of this book."[29]

A recent analysis of entropy states that "The entropy of a general gravitational field is still not known," and that "gravitational entropy is difficult to quantify." The analysis considers several possible assumptions that would be needed for estimates, and suggests that the visible universe has more entropy than previously thought. This is because the analysis concludes that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor.[30] Another writer goes further; "It has long been known that gravity is important for keeping the universe out of thermal equilibrium. Gravitationally bound systems have negative specific heat—that is, the velocities of their components increase when energy is removed. ... Such a system does not evolve toward a homogeneous equilibrium state. Instead it becomes increasingly structured and heterogeneous as it fragments into subsystems."[31]

All of which will eventually reach thermal equilibrium as time approaches infinity. It is the nature of heat and energy.

 

[ding]

Here is what he and everyone else who believes in inflation says:

It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe.

And there it is right in front of you from your own source, what you are calling "nothing" your own source is calling it a BALANCE of 2 (two) THINGS, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Net energy equaling zero means the 2 energies, positive and negative, are EQUAL, not that they don't exist and are "nothing."
Get it?
It is very simple and I'm sure everyone else gets it!

Clearly you don't understand that according to inflation theory nothing exists until space time is created through a quantum tunneling event where all energy is created and that the negative force is a consequence of the positive force just like in statics where the sum of forces equals zero.

Inflation says no such thing, that is YOUR perversion of inflation
Your own quote clearly says positive and negative energy exists and it is their very existence that creates space/time by a quantum fluctuation of those TWO existing energies.

That is exactly what inflation theory says. No universe. Then universe.

Inflation theory explains how the universe begins.

But it doesn't say no energy, then energy!!!!!
It says already existing positive and negative energy had a quantum fluctuation and a space/time universe was formed.

Actually it does. You just don't understand it.

I know this is s bitter pill for you to swallow. The universe had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

 

[ding]

Has nothing to do with motion. It has everything to do with loss of heat. THERMAL equilibrium. We don't see that.

It has everything to do with motion because the THEORETICAL heat death of the universe is when all the energy of the universe becomes heat and no more WORK can be done. But as long as there is motion there is KINETIC energy and kinetic energy CAN do work. The reality of the Third Law of Thermodynamics say that there is no temperature at which all motion stops, therefore there can never be thermal equilibrium in the universe.

You have invented a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics that does not exist and violates the TLoT.
THERE IS NO FOURTH LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, so I ask you in reality HOW MANY LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ARE THERE?????????
I dare you to answer!

It seems that you are unable to comprehend infinity.

It seems you can't comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Answer the question.

I'm not the one who can't comprehend infinity and thermal equilibrium which IS a consequence of the SLoT.

You can't comprehend how an expanding universe can NOT reach equilibrium!!!!

I don't think you can comprehend that the universe is always seeking equilibrium and that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches equilibrium.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

 

[edthecynic]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

 

[edthecynic]

And there it is right in front of you from your own source, what you are calling "nothing" your own source is calling it a BALANCE of 2 (two) THINGS, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Net energy equaling zero means the 2 energies, positive and negative, are EQUAL, not that they don't exist and are "nothing."
Get it?
It is very simple and I'm sure everyone else gets it!

Clearly you don't understand that according to inflation theory nothing exists until space time is created through a quantum tunneling event where all energy is created and that the negative force is a consequence of the positive force just like in statics where the sum of forces equals zero.

Inflation says no such thing, that is YOUR perversion of inflation
Your own quote clearly says positive and negative energy exists and it is their very existence that creates space/time by a quantum fluctuation of those TWO existing energies.

That is exactly what inflation theory says. No universe. Then universe.

Inflation theory explains how the universe begins.

But it doesn't say no energy, then energy!!!!!
It says already existing positive and negative energy had a quantum fluctuation and a space/time universe was formed.

Actually it does. You just don't understand it.

I know this is s bitter pill for you to swallow. The universe had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

You have yet to post a quote that says energy had a beginning, but you have posted many that have said that energy caused the quantum fluctuation that began the universe.
You are just too dishonest to admit it.

 

[edthecynic]

It has everything to do with motion because the THEORETICAL heat death of the universe is when all the energy of the universe becomes heat and no more WORK can be done. But as long as there is motion there is KINETIC energy and kinetic energy CAN do work. The reality of the Third Law of Thermodynamics say that there is no temperature at which all motion stops, therefore there can never be thermal equilibrium in the universe.

You have invented a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics that does not exist and violates the TLoT.
THERE IS NO FOURTH LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, so I ask you in reality HOW MANY LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS ARE THERE?????????
I dare you to answer!

It seems that you are unable to comprehend infinity.

It seems you can't comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Answer the question.

I'm not the one who can't comprehend infinity and thermal equilibrium which IS a consequence of the SLoT.

You can't comprehend how an expanding universe can NOT reach equilibrium!!!!

I don't think you can comprehend that the universe is always seeking equilibrium and that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches equilibrium.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Repeating your lies does not make your lies true, it only makes you a serial liar.

 

[ding]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Not exactly. He said inflation is not eternal into the past (i.e. the universe had a beginning) but can be eternal into the future (i.e. there can be more quantum tunneling events).

Eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium. That does not mean absolute zero. It means the universe will be at the same temperature or regions will be at the same temperature. We do not see that. Ergo the universe had a beginning. Space and time had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

 

[ding]

It seems that you are unable to comprehend infinity.

It seems you can't comprehend the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Answer the question.

I'm not the one who can't comprehend infinity and thermal equilibrium which IS a consequence of the SLoT.

You can't comprehend how an expanding universe can NOT reach equilibrium!!!!

I don't think you can comprehend that the universe is always seeking equilibrium and that as time approaches infinity, the universe approaches equilibrium.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Repeating your lies does not make your lies true, it only makes you a serial liar.

Eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium. That does not mean absolute zero. It means the universe will be at the same temperature or regions will be at the same temperature. Heat flow will cease. We do not see that. Ergo the universe had a beginning. Space and time had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

 

[ding]

Clearly you don't understand that according to inflation theory nothing exists until space time is created through a quantum tunneling event where all energy is created and that the negative force is a consequence of the positive force just like in statics where the sum of forces equals zero.

Inflation says no such thing, that is YOUR perversion of inflation
Your own quote clearly says positive and negative energy exists and it is their very existence that creates space/time by a quantum fluctuation of those TWO existing energies.

That is exactly what inflation theory says. No universe. Then universe.

Inflation theory explains how the universe begins.

But it doesn't say no energy, then energy!!!!!
It says already existing positive and negative energy had a quantum fluctuation and a space/time universe was formed.

Actually it does. You just don't understand it.

I know this is s bitter pill for you to swallow. The universe had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

You have yet to post a quote that says energy had a beginning, but you have posted many that have said that energy caused the quantum fluctuation that began the universe.
You are just too dishonest to admit it.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a cosmologists who doesn't believe the universe had a beginning which means that matter and energy had a beginning.

 

[edthecynic]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Not exactly. He said inflation is not eternal into the past (i.e. the universe had a beginning) but can be eternal into the future (i.e. there can be more quantum tunneling events).

Eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium. That does not mean absolute zero. It means the universe will be at the same temperature or regions will be at the same temperature. We do not see that. Ergo the universe had a beginning. Space and time had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

Your own wiki link contradicted that.

 

[ding]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Not exactly. He said inflation is not eternal into the past (i.e. the universe had a beginning) but can be eternal into the future (i.e. there can be more quantum tunneling events).

Eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium. That does not mean absolute zero. It means the universe will be at the same temperature or regions will be at the same temperature. We do not see that. Ergo the universe had a beginning. Space and time had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

Your own wiki link contradicted that.

You are the one who brings up heat death. I bring up thermal equilibrium which we do not see and we would if the universe were eternal. So it's not. Sorry.

 

[edthecynic]

Inflation says no such thing, that is YOUR perversion of inflation
Your own quote clearly says positive and negative energy exists and it is their very existence that creates space/time by a quantum fluctuation of those TWO existing energies.

That is exactly what inflation theory says. No universe. Then universe.

Inflation theory explains how the universe begins.

But it doesn't say no energy, then energy!!!!!
It says already existing positive and negative energy had a quantum fluctuation and a space/time universe was formed.

Actually it does. You just don't understand it.

I know this is s bitter pill for you to swallow. The universe had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

You have yet to post a quote that says energy had a beginning, but you have posted many that have said that energy caused the quantum fluctuation that began the universe.
You are just too dishonest to admit it.

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a cosmologists who doesn't believe the universe had a beginning which means that matter and energy had a beginning.

Again your lie that the universe had a beginning therefore energy had a beginning has been thoroughly debunked by your OWN links numerous tomes.

 

[ding]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

 

[edthecynic]

At some time in the future no more energy transformations can take place. The Universe will reach some stage of maximum entropy and thermal equilibrium. The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion.

Even Vilenkin says there is no end to the universe, only a beginning.

Inflationist Guth describes the universe as the ultimate free lunch.

And the rule is there is no such thing as a perpetual motion MACHINE!!!!!

Nature is however a completely different story, the electron orbiting the nucleus of a stable atom is in perpetual motion. If the entropy of such an electron was not zero, it would lose velocity and be drawn into the nucleus splitting it and no matter could exist.
Does matter exist? If so then perpetual motion exists in the universe.

Not exactly. He said inflation is not eternal into the past (i.e. the universe had a beginning) but can be eternal into the future (i.e. there can be more quantum tunneling events).

Eventually the universe will reach thermal equilibrium. That does not mean absolute zero. It means the universe will be at the same temperature or regions will be at the same temperature. We do not see that. Ergo the universe had a beginning. Space and time had a beginning. Energy had a beginning.

Your own wiki link contradicted that.

You are the one who brings up heat death. I bring up thermal equilibrium which we do not see and we would if the universe were eternal. So it's not. Sorry.

Repeating your BS does not make it true.

 

[ding]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

 

[edthecynic]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

 

[edthecynic]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

 

[ding]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

 

[ding]

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s,but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?

So there was already a patch of energy before inflation! Again a patch of energy is not nothing.
You keep proving energy always existed and will always exist with your own sources!
Thank you.

No. I keep proving energy had a beginning.

Do you have any scientific background, Ed?

 

[edthecynic]

http://inspirehep.net/record/551244/files/Pages_from_C00-01-22_53.pdf

Inflation and Creation of Matter in the Universe

Please pull the quote that says ENERGY had a beginning.

Here is a pull quote from your link that contradicts your claim that the universe has an end:

It
appears
that in many models large scalar field during inflation produces
large quantum
fluctuations
which may locally increase
the value of the scalar field in some parts of the universe.
These regions
expand at a greater rate than their
parent domains,
and quantum
fluctuations
inside
them lead to production
of new inflationary
domains which
expand even faster. This
surprising
behavior leads
to an eternal process of self-reproduction
of the universe

Eternal into the future. Not eternal into the past. If there is expansion there must be a beginning.

But YOU said the universe has an end, eternal into the future does not sound like an end to me! The point being you know nothing about which you speak and therefore contradict yourself with your own links.

The Second Law essentially says that the Universe must have had a beginning and a end.